Re: Intention: One is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of one’s acts
In crim there are no special verdict, but there can be general verdict.
State punishes so there is no vigilantism
Prevention (general deterrence)
Deterrence through threat of imprisonment
Deterrence through social stigma
Incapacitation (specific deterrence)
Queen v. Dudley & Stephens
Bacon: if its necessary, do it. Hale: se defendendo or in the act of a crime
If I kill someone who is threatening to kill someone else, then I am safe under “defense of others.” But the force has to be commensurate with the action.
Committed their sentence, so no specific deterrence
General purpose: not moral reflection because anyone else would have done it. They wanted to make a point about only in self defense.
No specific deterrence
Lesser penalty depreciates the seriousness of the crime
Pleading out of certain counts
Function of the opinion: sending message to lower courts, that they did not agree they way they ruled on the case, but has no effect on the defendant.
Why does judge impersonalize the victim by calling her the prosecutrix and takes great pains to personalize the criminal?: there was no good reason for doing this.
Judge says one year is not enough, but mitigated by the fact that she got in the car willingly.
Parole happens after you serve your term. Probation happens before?
So if, I am given a 2 yaer sentence, and I leave after 2 months for good behavior, this is what?
Objective of reformation was not effected.
Does this serve as general deterrence?
US v. Jackson, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1987
Sentenced on weapons charge, not robbery: possession of a weapon by career criminal.
There is a mandatory minimum here of fifteen years for violation of the statute,. No upper end to the statute. The sentence has to be stated in terms of years. And has to a reasonable amount of years. You cant sentence him to like 700 years. But could do something like 70. He is 35 at sentencing.
Burglary at night in a dwelling. Robbery: which poses greater threat of harm??
Robbery is taking stuff away from someone, implied harm. Possession of a weapon is more severe because it is more likely that harm will occur, but that never happened with this guy. So you could argue that the legislative intent of high sentences was meant to apply to criminals whom you fear would harm people.
What’s the point of keeping someone in jail past the time when he could still commit crimes?
Jackson argue that the statute requires imposition of a definite term of years. Court rejects this argument. Statute only says “not less than fifteen years.”
Read article 7, p. 1069
U.S. v. Johnson
Offense level calculation
Extraordinary family circumstances: only want to punish criminal and not innocents for interest of general good
In this case then, necessity exculpates crime.
He didn’t have to mitigate her sentence if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to and therefore utilized public policy statement and authority interpreting it to support his conclusion.
‘while intoxicated, appears”
“a voluntary appearance is presupposed.”
For most crimes there must be a confluence of a guilty mind a guilty act: a voluntary act and a mental state (intent, reckless, knowing, purposeful). There must be an act. We find from martin case that act must be a voluntary one,
I fell asleep—jury instructions—found not guilty on self defense???—reversible error
Why don’t they claim self defense?
Murder in 1st degree (premeditated intentional killing with malice)
Murder in the 2nd degree (intentional killing with malice)
Voluntary manslaughter (intentional without malice)
Malice is eradicated through provocation, imperfect self defense, mental disability not amounting to insanity
Involuntary manslaughter (reckless killing)—no such thing in criminal law????
Double jeopardy: cant be tried for same crime twice, if found not guilty. Can be tried for same act with a different name.
Reversible error: didn’t submit a defense instruction to the jury even though there was evidence of it,. You have to submit jury instruction when there is enough evidence.
First found not guilty on self defense and unconscious of Murder I and Murder II but guilty of voluntary manslaughter; then not guilty of voluntary manslaughter defense.
You can’t be unconsciously acting in self defense. You can only have one, but by CA law, you must submit when there is sufficient evidence. second go-around only used self-defense, no unconscious.
Model Penal Code approach excludes liability in the absence of a voluntary act.
Can the state take away your liberty for something which they licenses
pplant an actuakl administration of food and water on a per dosage basis, i.e. nurse injecting you. So, unhooking is like not giving the injections. And can only be guilty for omission if there is a duty. Do not need to discuss duty if is an act, and not a failure to act
No duty to continue treatment once they have determined that treatment is useless.
Wife could speak on husband’s behalf. No disagreement between wife and childrens.
ACTUS REUS RESUME
A guilty act, whether omission or act, has to be voluntarily undertaken. Unless unsconscious (unless by voluntary intoxication).
What if was omission to act? There must be a duty. Legal duty relationship, seclusion, etc…) not moral duty. Legal duty set out well in Jones case.
Reach of duty. When someone assumes care by seclusion. This is the duty that strays most from traditional duties.
Most of criminal is about the mental side of the case and whether the elements are completed,. In practice of criminal law, its more about criminal procedure. Study next year.
For crime, you need guilty mind and guilty act. Below we discuss the guilty mind.
Regina v. Cunningham, 1957
Rips the meter out
Malice v. wickedness
Malice: 1) intent to do the harm done
2) Recklessness: doing the act even though you can reasonably foresee risk, and you thoughtlessly risk that harm will not accrue
3) does not imply any ill will towards the person (wickedness)
Rum on boat
Constructive malice: reasonable probability of risk of harm, recklessness
Crown wanted to transfer intent from stealing to arson, court said no. But will be convicted on recklessness anyway, because he should have foreseen that it would explode. Ct reverse because lower court said it was sufficient that he was trying to steal.
Santillanes v. NM, 1993
Criminal negligence v. civil negligence: gross deviation from standard of care. Why? stigma and severity.
Harmless error doctrine: new trial would have the same outcome.